[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PaceRepeatIdInDocument posted

To: bob@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: PaceRepeatIdInDocument posted
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:12:21 -0500
Cc: "'Antone Roundy'" <antone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Reply-to: mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Bob Wyman wrote:

	It is all this informality and hand-waving around atom:id and
atom:updated that is the source of any trouble with using atom:feed as an
archive format. Given globally unique ids (atom:id) and version tags
(atom:updated) for entries, archiving would be trivial even for "ignoramus
apps".

BTW, if it weren't for the atrocious design error of banning recursive feeds, we wouldn't even be having this argument. A feed would always mean "current status", while a series of them would mean "stream".

Robert Sayre

References:
- RE: PaceRepeatIdInDocument posted
  - From: Bob Wyman

Prev by Date: Re: PaceRepeatIdInDocument posted
Next by Date: PaceDatesXSD (was: xsd:dateTime vs. RFC 3339)
Previous by thread: Re: PaceRepeatIdInDocument posted
Next by thread: Re: PaceRepeatIdInDocument posted
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread